Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CJCurrie


 * (22/1/4) ends 15:50 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CJCurrie is a PhD history candidate at Queen's University in Kingston Ontario. He has been with us since April 2004 and has focussed largely on Canadian topics. His articles are thoroughly researched and meticulous and his editing has been problem free. He's also avoided any conflict with other editors. AndyL 15:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. I've become extremely interested in Wikipedia as of late, and I'm willing (and able) become involved at the next level, beyond simply writing articles. CJCurrie 20:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support


 * 1) J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Gzornenplatz 17:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) -- orthogonal 17:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC). We represent the Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild, The Lollipop Guild / And in the name of the Lollypop Guild, / We wish to welcome you to Muchkinland.
 * 4) Seems a strong user. Andre 19:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) A very strong user - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Lst27 21:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) [[User_talk:Anárion|&#9398;&#8469;&#940;&#8475;&#8505;&#8500;&#628; ]] 22:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Merovingian [[Image:Atombomb.gif|]] Talk  04:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Careful & well-mannered. A solid contributor.
 * 11) Sjc 09:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Support; thoughtful and careful work which will translate well into adminship.
 * 12) 172 12:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Danny 14:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) - SimonP 15:31, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Jwrosenzweig 13:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) Seems a solid candidate, and a good contributor. I have confidence that CJ will make up for any lack of experience in fighting here by consulting others before making momentous decisions.
 * 16) Adam Bishop 20:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) ffirehorse 22:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Expecting to have seen lots of involvement in Wikipedia's debates only biases the process against the levelheaded kinds of people we need as admins. His reasonable tone and excellent work shows that he has internalized well the policies relevant to editing, and I have no doubt that he can internalize the policies related to admin privileges as well. --Michael Snow 00:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Rhymeless 01:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) I recognize him (well, his name, anyway) from several other Canadian political forums (can.politics and the Election Prediction Project, for two) and can attest that he knows his stuff. Bearcat 05:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) CryptoDerk 14:28, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Jayjg 22:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Will support after 2,000 edits. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Cannot get a clear picture on community involvement. Hard-working, certainly, but I have no real way of knowing the level of CJ's knowledge of policies at this point in time. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:18, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Grunt. I certainly don't think CJCurrie will misuse admin powers, judging by the quality of his edits. However, he has very few edits to pages outside of the Main namespace, and, since his user page consists solely of his name, I have a hard time judging his views on Wikipedia. I certainly don't think that every admin needs to be a mean, lean, policy-writing machine like Angela, but I do think that admins should at least be familiar with resolving conflicts and have some sort of involvement in metadiscussions. --Slowking Man 03:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ugen64 00:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) - I cannot, in good faith, support someone who is willing to take editing to "the next level". (just kidding, guys, don't jump on me, now)... actually, I'd like to echo Grunt's concerns. ugen64 00:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1,068 contributions for those interested. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  16:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
 * A. I have.
 * 2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
 * A. I am, and I do.
 * 3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
 * A. I would be interested in watching for vandals and vandalism, and would be willing to assist in overseeing the "recent changes" list.
 * 4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
 * A. Political parties of Canada.  I've added several new parties to the list, and have written articles for many of them.
 * 5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
 * A. I've not done extensive work in correcting vandalism or mediating disputes (as of yet).  I have categorized numerous articles in the field of Canadian political history, particularly as regards politicians in the province of Manitoba.
 * 6. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I have not been involved in hostile exchanges with other users.